Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Protests over a cartoon... wtf.
( ) 3 Votes
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200544 is a reply to message #188804] |
Tue, 23 May 2006 10:35   |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Funny. I saw The DaVinci Code this past weekend, and I didn't see it as an attack at all. Quite the opposite, I saw it as a call for free-thinking. It simply presents a case and allows the viewer to form his or her own conclusions. Christianity on the other hand, basically says "This is what the bible says, therefore it's right. Any deviance from this is wrong. If you don't believe you're going to hell."
What's an attack on what, exactly?
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200550 is a reply to message #188804] |
Tue, 23 May 2006 11:36 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Just let it happen. Duh. What kind of insecure nut would get worked up over WORDS?
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200556 is a reply to message #200547] |
Tue, 23 May 2006 12:11 |
 |
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| SpyGuy246 wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 13:02 |
Say someone calls your mother a slut. Even if it clearly isn't true, are you going to respond to that or just let it happen?
|
That must be the most retarded thing I've ever read...
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200580 is a reply to message #200478] |
Tue, 23 May 2006 15:47 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Hydra wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 02:09 |
It may not be as vehement as I suggested in my earlier post, but it was still an attack in that he tried to downplay the actions of those muslims by saying "well Christians complain about stupid stuff like this too."
|
After rereading his posts a few times, I really don't know how this conclusion could be reached. He didn't downplay anything, especially since he didn't suggest such a matter was even in contention. As stated before, the irony he mentioned isn't very spectacular in the first place, but it still exists regardless of the specifics of the situation. Religious people tend to take this process of non-thinking epistemology to such an extreme that belligerence is a repercussion of whatever the situation is. It is highly unfortunate that the poor and stupid Muslims of the world take to violence to express such anger, don't get me wrong. But the fact that Christians also get so angry over similar stimulus does not dismiss the fact that they take extreme action in turn. In this case, it's obviously not violence, it's smear campaigns against a fiction being purported as fact by none other than the conservative wing in the first place! Mr. Brown may have stated that his work contains factual information regarding certain categories, but he also made quite clear (and reiterated in that trial) that the work is nothing but a fiction to be taken with a grain of sand as a whole. The point the person who started this was trying to make was that both sides do stupid things for immensely stupid reasons. To such a thing I say "fucking duh" and move on.
| Quote: |
They probably said "wow, it's just a cartoon" because of the way the muslims responded to them; no sane person is going to say, "They have a right to be mad, which justifies their rioting."
|
On the contrary, I don't believe that anyone in the western world with a shred of sense ever pretended that the action they took was justified. I have the utmost reason to believe it was over the fact that the belief of the muslims states that Muhammed must not be drawn-- or whatever the still retarded dogma is.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200668 is a reply to message #188804] |
Wed, 24 May 2006 07:45 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
You know, what my mother does extramaritally is none of my business, so for all I know, she could be.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200786 is a reply to message #188804] |
Wed, 24 May 2006 20:47 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I love how everyone expects me to shit bricks like a bible-thumper watching The DaVinci Code because my mother was dragged into this conversation.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200790 is a reply to message #200544] |
Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 13:35 |
Funny. I saw The DaVinci Code this past weekend, and I didn't see it as an attack at all. Quite the opposite, I saw it as a call for free-thinking.
|
Free-thinking as long as it's a humanist form of thinking, right?
| Quote: |
It simply presents a case and allows the viewer to form his or her own conclusions.
|
It presents a case against the Catholic church and steers the viewer to form an anti-Catholic/Christianity conclusion.
It tells us that Christ was simply another figure in history rather than the Son of God and even had a wife of His own.
It goes on to expose some of the atrocities committed by the Catholic church.
I don't see how any viewer who may have been on the fence about religion can draw any other conclusion other than "Christianity is bad" from this movie.
| Quote: |
Christianity on the other hand, basically says "This is what the bible says, therefore it's right. Any deviance from this is wrong. If you don't believe you're going to hell."
|
I don't know what Christians you've been talking to, but if THAT'S what you think the basic message of Christianity is, you've missed the point completely.
Want to know what the basic message of Christianity is? "Love God, and love people." Love God (in all three forms) with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.
What you've said is the basic message of Christianity is a misinterpretation of what SOME judgmental Christian fundamentalists have said over the years. Sadly, many Christians do not know how to tactfully share the gospel with non-believers without being too abrasive or judgmental. It's really not your fault you think the way you do about Christianity; rather, it's the fault of those abrasive and judgmental Christians who failed to explain their beliefs in a tactful way without being too offensive.
| Quote: |
What's an attack on what, exactly?
|
The DaVinci Code is an attack on a message of love.
| Quote: |
Just let it happen. Duh. What kind of insecure nut would get worked up over WORDS?
|
When those words have the power to destroy your reputation and add to the slander that's already out there against you, thus giving people on the fence one more reason to turn away from you.
| Quote: |
I love how everyone expects me to shit bricks like a bible-thumper watching The DaVinci Code because my mother was dragged into this conversation.
|
| Quote: |
What's an attack on what, exactly?
|
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200811 is a reply to message #188804] |
Thu, 25 May 2006 02:28 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I didn't read through this whole thread, but something here is very, very wrong.
| Quote: |
It presents a case against the Catholic church and steers the viewer to form an anti-Catholic/Christianity conclusion.
It tells us that Christ was simply another figure in history rather than the Son of God and even had a wife of His own.
It goes on to expose some of the atrocities committed by the Catholic church.
I don't see how any viewer who may have been on the fence about religion can draw any other conclusion other than "Christianity is bad" from this movie.
|
You do know that it's just a fictional story, right? That's like secret service agents getting mad because some thriller portraits them as evil...if people take that stuff for real, then it should really be their fault instead of the author's, don't you think?
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200856 is a reply to message #200790] |
Thu, 25 May 2006 07:53 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 |
Free-thinking as long as it's a humanist form of thinking, right?
|
No, just thinking outside what's normally accepted.
| Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 |
It presents a case against the Catholic church and steers the viewer to form an anti-Catholic/Christianity conclusion.
|
But a viewer is to free to, as you have I'm sure, form a differant opinion.
| Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 |
It tells us that Christ was simply another figure in history rather than the Son of God and even had a wife of His own.
|
There's no actual proof to say otherwise, other than a book.
| Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 |
It goes on to expose some of the atrocities committed by the Catholic church.
|
Which should be kept secret...why? If I'm going to cast my vote for the Catholic church, I expect to know all thecrap they've done in their history, similar to the press having a field day with George Bush and the choking on the pretzel, or the fact that he's snorted cocaine in his college years. In the same way the Americans have a right to know the information before electing him to any position, people have a right to know about these atrocities commited by the Catholic church before dedicating part of their lives and wallets to it.
| Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 |
I don't see how any viewer who may have been on the fence about religion can draw any other conclusion other than "Christianity is bad" from this movie.
|
Maybe, but there are more than enough "Pro-Christian" influences in the world. Too many, in fact. One movie on the other side isn't going
| Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 |
I don't know what Christians you've been talking to, but if THAT'S what you think the basic message of Christianity is, you've missed the point completely.
Want to know what the basic message of Christianity is? "Love God, and love people." Love God (in all three forms) with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.
|
...And if you don't want to love god, because you don't believe, you're going to hell, right?
| Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 |
What you've said is the basic message of Christianity is a misinterpretation of what SOME judgmental Christian fundamentalists have said over the years. Sadly, many Christians do not know how to tactfully share the gospel with non-believers without being too abrasive or judgmental. It's really not your fault you think the way you do about Christianity; rather, it's the fault of those abrasive and judgmental Christians who failed to explain their beliefs in a tactful way without being too offensive.
|
Amongst the most "fundamentalist" of Christian groups are the Catholics. They're literally the foundation for all the churches that came thereafter. Last I checked the Catholic church numbered about 1,000.000,000 people. Hardly SOME.
| Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 |
The DaVinci Code is an attack on a message of love.
|
Christianity does not hold a monopoly on them messege of love. To continue the metaphor, they own very little shares of the messege of love.
| Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 |
When those words have the power to destroy your reputation and add to the slander that's already out there against you, thus giving people on the fence one more reason to turn away from you.
|
That's implying I give a shit about what people I've never met and never will meet care about me. Who cares if they turn away from me. Similarly, why should you care if The DaVinci Code results in less recruitment for the church?
| Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 |
| Quote: |
I love how everyone expects me to shit bricks like a bible-thumper watching The DaVinci Code because my mother was dragged into this conversation.
|
| Quote: |
What's an attack on what, exactly?
|
|
You're implying that I attacked Christianity, I'm assuming?
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:55] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200888 is a reply to message #200790] |
Thu, 25 May 2006 10:27 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
You've stated a mouthful there, Hydra.
| Hydra wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 01:12 |
Free-thinking as long as it's a humanist form of thinking, right?
|
This is an interesting point to make. As someone who pertains but doesn't subscribe to Christianity, and having been immersed in Christian schools since the age of four, I feel I have at least an informed opinion on this matter. The DaVinci Code does not, at least to me, come off as a humanist dogma. It lends itself to a thoroughly agnostic position. That IS free-thinking. It's the mean between the extremes of deism and atheism, which as far as I'm concerned is the sweet spot.
Just because something squelches what you believe does not mean it is wrong, evil, or even slander. That's a harsh point to make, seeing how DVC is also a fiction-- something to reiterate thoroughly because it doesn't seem to be sinking in with those who believe it has ever been purported as anything but.
On a side note, Christianity is supposed to be a free-thinking institution. And while I think that is an oxymoron to boundless extremes given the criteria that come standard with the [Christian] tag, I ask why it is considered such a pox on the institution to facilitate alternatives to what is commonly accepted? Is Christianity only free-thinking when it's in line with the accepted dogma? Or am I missing something here that wasn't revealed to me over nearly 15 years of Christian schooling and 5 years of independent study?
| Quote: |
It presents a case against the Catholic church and steers the viewer to form an anti-Catholic/Christianity conclusion.
|
JohnDoe made a very ample comparison to this.
| Quote: |
That's like secret service agents getting mad because some thriller portraits them as evil
|
Similarity, should you subscribe to Christianity, wouldn't this fiction allow you to ask questions to strengthen your faith? Mind you, I've never bought into that standard response to discernment from the Christian front either, but some people find logic in it so I'll toss it out there.
| Quote: |
It tells us that Christ was simply another figure in history rather than the Son of God and even had a wife of His own.
|
So? Metal Gear Solid uses factual coincidences to establish a hidden sub-government within the US government dating back to the birth of America that runs the world secretly. But that was a fiction too, right?
I certainly don't believe that if Jesus lived, He lived any other way then what the Bible purported Him as (seeing how the Biblical texts and similar books are our only "reliable" source on His life). I certainly don't think that, nor ever did, Da Vinci would be privvy to such information contrary in the first place.
| Quote: |
It goes on to expose some of the atrocities committed by the Catholic church.
I don't see how any viewer who may have been on the fence about religion can draw any other conclusion other than "Christianity is bad" from this movie.
|
The Catholic Church is guilty of atrocities. They are one of the most corrupt institutions in history. Mind you, they're also one of the most long-standing, so they've had a long time to rack in the distrust and reputation they have. They are guilty of doing vastly good things, but thats shadow in comparison when they commit an evil thing. That goes a great deal farther when you hear what Catholic dogma says about the the nature of the papacy.
| Quote: |
I don't know what Christians you've been talking to, but if THAT'S what you think the basic message of Christianity is, you've missed the point completely.
Want to know what the basic message of Christianity is? "Love God, and love people." Love God (in all three forms) with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.
|
I think that you'll find that most people who don't subscribe to the Bible or Christianity will fit the description of the Christian version of "love thy neighbour". You'll also find that they may also have contention with your description of the Divine. Personally, I'd like to know how it is you know that God is the way you claim He is and not like the way I say He is. It certainly isn't as simple as just saying "love God and love your neighbour", because loving God is a pretty big freaking commitment to make. Let me elaborate:
In order to love God, you need to know what God is. You can throw that idea that God is in people, but the Old Testiment and New Testiment seem to suggest that God is Himself a seperate entity from all of us and should be loved in such a respect. Further, that claim is dismissed when the second piece of message says "love thy neighbour" which further suggests God is something other than people. I say this because in previous discussions, this point has been raised and I want to nip it in the bud. In order to love God, you need to know what He is-- or in fact, that He IS a He. In order to do this, we refer to the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, whatever. All books say that God is. You read through them and you come to the conclusion that God exists simply because He does. So, now you are told to love someone whom you have no reason to believe actually exists in the manner described. So the problem is clear, and the problem with Christianity is clear.
Those people who love their neighbours without subscribing to Christianity tend not to have a problem with loving each other, they have a problem with loving a logical being extrapolated into an immensely illogical fallacy***.
| Quote: |
The DaVinci Code is an attack on a message of love.
|
Why? Please define love, because I think we're referring to different things.
| Quote: |
When those words have the power to destroy your reputation and add to the slander that's already out there against you, thus giving people on the fence one more reason to turn away from you.
|
Turn away from you, or turn away from your beliefs? Is being offered material to study and confirm or dispute constitute this? Or should the information claimed to be truth by Mr. Brown be left secret for those only privvy to a theology degree or an impulse to study church history? I'm not saying everything he claims as truthful is truthful, because there are several debatable points. However, there are many others that raise important questions that have every right to see the light of day. If they cause your belief system to suffer, that is not the truth's fault. It is your instituation. It is most definately not slander.
***I say that God is a logical conclusion based on the works of Thomas Aquinas. I say that the Bible however is an illogical extrapolation because there is no proof outside conjecture suggesting that anything supernatural in the Bible has ever happened or could happen. I can say that God probably exists, but He certainly isn't the God that turned a woman to salt and flooded the world. That God has evidence stacked against him, while mine has nothing but evidence FOR Him.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200899 is a reply to message #188804] |
Thu, 25 May 2006 10:55 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
What I should have said is there is MORE evidence for my concept of God then the Biblical one. I'm thoroughly agnostic, so I tend to pertain to ideas that have a probability attached to them. Aquinas (it was the reader's digest version for complexity's sake) and Kant combined generally make up my theory. I'm not gonna go into too much depth lest I throw this thread off topic, but in a nutshell it seems to be far more probable to me that all things are caused by a causee then an infinite regression of causality.
Aquinas (again, reader's digest) says that an infinite regression of causality is very possible, but it doesn't account for the existence of the regression. That's where the first cause comes in. There are no stipulations on the nature of the first cause, merely that it has happened. Which is also why we have no reason to believe anything other than God probably exists. You can call him Zummpledumple for all I care. It's not the same God as the Bible, but I call Him that nonetheless because His existence is akin to that God.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
[Updated on: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:56] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200911 is a reply to message #188804] |
Thu, 25 May 2006 11:16 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
No, that's exactly the flaw in Aquinas' logic...he assumes that there is a god in the first place (call him zumpledumble if you wish), but why couldn't there just be the universe? It's much more probable since we have proof that the universe exists.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200922 is a reply to message #188804] |
Thu, 25 May 2006 11:28 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Not quite. Aquinas himself might have assumed God existed and went on to prove it, but the theory does not. The theory suggests that because all things are caused, there must be a causer. This is why I say it is probable and not definate that God exists. Aquinas himself thought it absolutely certain, whereas everything we know about this universe today suggests things are only probable.
To me personally, all things I have experienced suggest to me that all things are almost certainly caused by something else. As this regression proceeds to a single first cause (to which I also don't know existed, I can only speculate), I can call it God, Java, Xcx, whatever. It's the first cause that exists only in such a form that is transcendental. That's why there can be the appearence of a universe that has always been here but it has also been caused into being. Similarily, it can simpler and the universe could have started at a single point. I didn't want to touch too much on Kant here because his theories are just as far out there.
But it's like string theory. The conclusions are pretty intense, but it is challenging to prove them wrong. Make note though, this God doesn't even need to be all that special. It's merely the cause that allowed all things today to happen. It doesn't necessarily mean that such a God isn't capable of anything else, but it doesn't negate that possibility.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200939 is a reply to message #188804] |
Thu, 25 May 2006 11:58 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Just based on the last few comments regarding the universe and God, in short form:
Either everything had a beginning, or some things simply just existed, and always have.
Taking this premise, you have three choises (for all three, assume "the Universe" includes it's pre-big bang form):
1) The Universe has always existed. Therefore God did not create the universe.
However, this can not be used to disprove the overall idea of God's existance, as if the universe has always existed, then the possiblilty of God always existing is still there.
2) The Universe did not exist at one point in time. It simply created itself.
This can also not be used to disprove the existance of God. Afterall, if an unitelligent thing such as the universe can create itself, why can an intelligent being not do the same?
3) The Universe did not exist at one point in time. Something must have created it.
Self-explanitory. Something created it. That would be the being we call God. Who created God then? Well, something somewhere had to create itself in order to begin creating new things. Whether or not it is true "God" came from nothing, or was simply always there, there had to be a beginning at some point.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200942 is a reply to message #188804] |
Thu, 25 May 2006 12:03 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Not quite. Aquinas himself might have assumed God existed and went on to prove it, but the theory does not. The theory suggests that because all things are caused, there must be a causer. This is why I say it is probable and not definate that God exists. Aquinas himself thought it absolutely certain, whereas everything we know about this universe today suggests things are only probable.
|
It's not even probable...there is no evidence whatsoever that he exists.
| Quote: |
To me personally, all things I have experienced suggest to me that all things are almost certainly caused by something else. As this regression proceeds to a single first cause (to which I also don't know existed, I can only speculate), I can call it God, Java, Xcx, whatever. It's the first cause that exists only in such a form that is transcendental. That's why there can be the appearence of a universe that has always been here but it has also been caused into being. Similarily, it can simpler and the universe could have started at a single point. I didn't want to touch too much on Kant here because his theories are just as far out there.
|
Like you've said, it's nothing more than speculations. What if after your god there is another god and then another,...? The theory just has too many flaws and assumptions. Why does there have to be a first cause? The universe could just exist forever for what I care...
| Quote: |
This is another thing to consider. When you say that you have proof that the universe exists, what is it? I'm not trying to be a broad spectrum here, but when you start mixing theories of proof it's necessary to bring it up. If you can say that we can prove that the universe exists, I'm assuming you're basing this on the experience that you exist IN the universe. Then suddenly you're comparing apples and apples because the universe you claim exists under mostly probable objective circumstances must also probably follow some kind of logic. If it's causality, then Aquinas' theory is still applicable because of Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic theory.
|
It doesn't need to be causality, tho. I personally think the universe exists forever and is always expanding and decreasing.
lol
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 18 15:21:04 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01422 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
